Laws of Spain, or of Roman Christendom, declaring that America belongs to Americans (ie natives) and that they are free.
Bill of rights not seen by any European colonized peoples elsewhere.
Ever wonder why all the brown people seem to live south of Rio Grande, as soon as the language changes to Spanish? Because the Spaniards were, by far, the most benign European imperialists.
There were crimes, Potosi cries out to this day, but the fact that an Incan nobleman knew how to write in Spanish and could petition the court of Charles V (?) is a testament to Spain.
While you’re at it, care to expound a little more than “reframing”?
Did those laws not exist?
Did they not grant rights unheard of in the 16th century?
Are there not vastly larger populations of natives south of Rio Grande?
Did I not acknowledge that crimes were committed (but were leas in intensity and duration than of other colonizers)?
I mean, my comment surely hurts the pride of Anglos (and Dutch) - for all their moaning of conquistadors Northern Europeans were far more brutal than Spain. Theres no contest.
There's an interesting position in "The Dawn of Everything" by Graeber and Wengrow wherein they argue that the isolation that the Americas were allowed gives us a palette of alternative social constructions. The influence of the Greeks, the Alexandrian, the Roman and the cultural modalities of the Mediterranean an no doubt the various other groups of considerable power and most importantly the emergent interplay. Moreover the eventual concretion of hierarchical structure in the most elementary facets of life, lead to the assent of man to such hierarchy, thus pushing forward the ideological model of European states. This, perhaps, leveraged the equalization of man in the eyes of god to be convincing.
To put it concisely, Europeans were deluded into the belief that hierarchy was ever-present - something which is heavily discredited historically. Further rationalizations that it must be so for a "developed, complex" society is evidently made spurious as well.
The various peoples of the Americas on the other hand, lacking in these diverse influences, and instead developing their own systems often altogether eschewed hierarchy and formalized coercive powers. Men and women in some cultures were very explicitly equal, and chiefs held little in the way of formal power. They were public speakers, and they had to present rational and convincing arguments - the rational tradition. This is a stark contrast to the feudal system and the heavy influence of the Roman Catholic church at the time. DoE suggests that certain figures had considerable influence on later though, providing citations from philosophers such as Montesquieu.
Their key argument comes from a highly-referenced individual named Kandiaronk, who is quite probably the basis for Adario in Baron Lahontan's books (evidently very popular), of particular interest:
"Finally, Supplement aux Voyages ou Dialogues avec le sauvage Adario lambasts institutional Christianity by means of a dialogue between de Lahontan and a Huron Chief named Adario (The Rat). The author attempts to contrast the injustice of Christianity with the freedom and justice of native people. His idealized view of "natural humanity" as a vehicle for criticizing European civilization was a forceful early expression of the "noble savage" trope associated with the Enlightenment."[1]
Evidently, Lahontan's writings were very popular:
"All these would be rather trivial concerns had Lahontan’s books not been so successful; but they were to have an enormous impact on European sensibilities. Kandiaronk’s opinions were translated into German, English, Dutch and Italian, and continued in print, in multiple editions, for over a century. Any self-respecting intellectual of the eighteenth century would have been almost certain to have read them." [2]
Coming from that point of reference, it wouldn't be surprising that Spain, having decades worth of exclusive exposure, would come out leading "liberal" thought. But is it fair to assert that it was Europeans that initiated it if it is so that they were inspired by the natives of the New World?
This is some kind of reverse "what did the Romans do for us" satire, right?
"But apart from killing 80% of the native population, who definitely weren't slaves because in return for their forced labour they were forcibly converted to Catholicism, what exactly did the Spanish do wrong?" The bills of rights were inspired by the extent of the conquistadors' brutality, were generally ignored and the New Laws lasted three whole years and one dead viceroy before the Spanish settlers forced the King to back down. I'm not sure missionaries teaching one nobleman Spanish so that he could write a petition to be ignored really offsets that.
They weren't killed, they died of diseases. As we see today with the pandemic, the respiratory illnesses were unstoppable, so you cant ascribe guilt through some assumed knowledge of proto-germ theory.
The first law is from 1512, 20 years after the discover of the Americas. Given transportation at the time it is clear that he vast majority of the troops overthrowing the Inca were recruited by the subjugated native peoples. Kinda what progressives [1] tried to do in Afghanistan. Pray, what noble accomplishment do we have to show in Afghanistan after 20 years?
The enslavement of natives was against the law of King. Ignored by criminals, sure, but the law was clear and its violators criminals.
Forced conversion to Catholicism from a blood thirst cult that stained their monuments with the blood of innocents. Ya, they were real bad for that. Btw, if you insist on cultural relativism, what were progressives doing in Afghanistan but proselytizing feminism?
[1] I used the word progressive, as opposed to Americans, on purpose as the war was a multi nation effort cheered on by people, “right” or “left” who believe we have to impose democracy and liberalism on others. I remember before 9/11 when leftist wanted to liberate Afghani women. I remember in August, when leftists were aghast we left the women behind
Please do not take HN threads further into nationalistic or (god help us) religious flamewar. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.
The Inca were probably the most astonishingly advanced Native Americans, and they surely had great thinkers (definitely great engineers). And here come the conquistadors, rock-headed barbarians from the most desperate segments of Spanish society (little else drove people to risk their life for riches in the New World), absolutely slaughtering them, burning their cultural artifacts or melting them down into ingots when applicable.
It's like if (a much more desperate and destitute version of) the January 6th protesters were sent to conquer new worlds.
As an aside, a colorful example[0]: they lured the Emperor in a plaza (he came to show he was unafraid, and his army were disarmed of all but ceremonial weapons), and, in the slaughter that ensued, they tried capturing him. He was up on a palanquin, carried by servants. Unable to reach him, the Spanish began cutting off the limbs of the servants, who it's said, without thinking, bore the load on their shoulders instead (it was unthinkable to do otherwise, as they considered the Emperor a god). Eventually, they captured him. In captivity, they taught him to play Chess, and I think it's said he was good at it. Later, panicked that an army was going to come and re-capture him, they killed him. Before his death, he was offered conversion to Catholicism, which he accepted, which awarded him the clemency of being strangled instead of burned alive.
This is a very colorful view of history. You can also see that the first university in America was built by the spaniards. The first university in Asia? Also, built by the spaniards.
The earlier ships were a mixture of those "barbarians" as you mentioned, and very learned people.
The concept of international law and human rights started with the discussions in Spain after the discovery of America:
The Law of 1512 formalised the econmienda system, which was slavery in all but name. The best thing to be said for it is that it was intended to be less brutal than what had already happened and what continued to happen. Diseases decimated the population north and south of the Rio Grande, but it was south of it that the much greater populations also died from overwork (not that the British and French were any better; they just imported their slaves from elsewhere).
You will forgive me for not engaging further if you are the sort of person that regards the econmienda system as a magnificent accomplishment, especially compared with the horrors of female education "leftists" inflicted in Afghanistan. It is the same reason I don't speak to the sort of person that argues the holocaust was basically self defence and signs his posts off Deutschland Uber Alles.
> (not that the British and French were any better; they just imported their slaves from elsewhere).
I should point out that the Spanish also imported slaves from Africa in prodigious quantities. However, instead of doing it themselves, the Spanish crown let out a single contract for who would be the sole importer of slaves into the American colonies (the asiento)--and all of the major maritime powers of Europe were vying to win that contract at various points in time.
If you find the term "Deutschland Uber Alles" problematic then you'd be horrified if you ever watch Germany at the football world cup, because "Deutschland Uber Alles" is not a Nazi or fascistic slogan but is a lyric from the current German national anthem.
And ¡Viva España! is entirely unproblematic except when thrown into revisionist history troll posts. Similarly, regardless of whether the average German ever feels inclined to use the "Deutschland uber alles" phrase at all, if they're using it in forum posts arguing the way German soldiers treated conquered peoples was pretty reasonable actually, they're signalling something quite different to excitement about Die Mannschaft reaching another final
Anyway, every time I've watched Germany at the World Cup they only sing the third verse of the Deutschlandlied which doesn't include that phrase. You'd be shocked to learn why it's fallen out of fashion. So that was a really pointless tangent for you to go off on...
They didn't kill the native population. Horrible crimes were committed but not genocide. The crimes committed there were not different than the ones committed in Europe between Europeans.
The conquistadores were able to overthrow an Empire because they made allies with everybody else who was bullied by them.
Sadly diseases killed a lot of people. More than 90% of the deaths were caused by said diseases, I think it was close to 94%.
If Spaniards were marrying into the native nobility is because it mattered to the locals as they were the majority.
“ The crimes committed there were not different than the ones committed in Europe between Europeans.”
Just over 100 years ago Belgians were “harvesting” the right arms of Congolese for who knows what reason. The Spaniards were always much more benign than their Northern cousins.
Well, I wasn't comparing it to what other countries did with their colonies. I was comparing it to what Europeans did to themselves.
Oh, by the way. Spain never had colonies. They had provinces and everyone in those provinces was just as citizen of the empire as someone from current Spain.
> Oh, by the way, Spain never had colonies. They had provinces and everyone in those provinces was just as citizen of the empire as someone from current Spain.
Um. Okay. A colony is:
1. "an area over which a foreign nation or state extends or maintains control"
and
2. "a group of people who establish residence in that area and who retain ties with the parent state."[1]
So, to say that Spain had no colonies is patently false- it most certainly had pockets of emigrants from the homeland who were still culturally tied to it and under its rule (the Philippines, Louisiana, any number of Caribbean islands, colonial Mexico, and the list goes on and on during Siglo de Oro and beyond).
I don't have a horse in this race, but if you wanna act like a pedant, you're gonna be treated like one. Ridiculous.
If you want to accuse other to be pedant, please, note first the 'foreign' word in your description.
Living in a province of the -same- nation that has granted you a fully citizenship is a different situation than living in a colony ruled by a -foreign- nation. As everybody knows, the later typically comes with none or a restricted set of rights. Ask a Puerto rican friend for more details.
I'll respond to both of you here, since I cba to refute the same thing twice.
Let me ask you this: was the colony of Jamestown not a colony? English citizens in a foreign land ruled by a governor beholden to the crown?
Because that's how all the "provinces" populated by Spanish settlers were set up. King Charles V chartered the Council of the Indies, which set up viceroys to govern the "provinces" in the New World, which was beholden to the monarchy.
Aside from this, the actual charter of the Council of the Indies uses the words "colonias" and "territorios" when referring to their "jurisdicciones" as opposed to "provincias". I think those cognates can be fairly easily understood.
Look, I'm happy to admit I'm wrong if you can provide a better source than the charter for the council over Spain's colonies.
I don't know if you realize but you proved my point.
"an area over which a foreign nation or state extends or maintains control".
The provinces were part of the Spanish Empire, not foreign entities under Spanish control.
"a group of people who establish residence in that area and who retain ties with the parent state."
There is no parent state, there is only one state. So again, not a colony.
And I don't know why do you call me pedant. I just pointed out something that I think was relevant to the conversation. What I find ridiculous is you being triggered by it.
sure, they didn't violiently decimate the native populations, salmonella took care of that on its own.
And instead of violently killing the remaining natives they raped and enslaved them (as compared to just murdered them). That is not benign in any way, shape, or form.
sometimes I think that the main difference is that the Spanish didn't have a clear idea of where they'd arrived; they had sailed looking for new trade routes. But then they "struck gold" and they improvised.
But the rest of the europeans sailed to conquer, with a very clear picture of what they were doing even before taking to the sea: taking over the "new world".
Please do not take HN threads into nationalistic or ideological flamewar. You started a doozy with this one and then poured fuel on the inevitable flames. We ban accounts that do that, so please don't do it again.
Cherry-picking is useful to promote agendas, but I would prefer to ask the opinion of a true historian about that.
> one of the most important and idiosyncratic texts of Indigenous American literature remained forgotten
Hem, nope. I don't buy this BS.
In the roman empire tradition, Spanish crown registered absolutely anything of interest. They funded the first global, -global-, scientific studies about American Flora and Fauna. The whole stuff. Just one book in the series would gave us a much better picture of the history than this text.
And they spent a lot of money in that huge task, just to publish and share it with the rest of Europe. We have 'English' tomatoes and 'Dutch' potatoes and 'Italian' peppers or avocados because they shared the discoveries. Think about it. Try to culture some Asian spices in Europe instead.
There are probably hundreds, (if not thousands) of more relevant texts about the early history of the New World. And unlike the old tale of "boy finds big thing gathering dust in a library" they are available to anybody interested.
Spaniards or Portuguese crowns did a lot of things wrong but also a lot of things right. The last week somebody was talking on TV about if is time to repatriate the remains of Hernan Cortés to Spain to protect them from haters, The man was dead for centuries, for Pete's sake!.
Lets put it clear, this "miraculous discovering" is just another cancel latinoamerican culture stunt.
The only Latin Americans from Latin America Ive ever known who are resentful of Spain are white, unemployed socialists who studied Marxism. And I like to think I’ve met enough of them.
Spain is fascinating. The “pop” image of her is seriously wrong (and this is widely known to historians).
It's such a shame that the coding system used by quipus was lost for so long. I bet a lot of quipus were just thrown away because nobody could read them anymore.
> The Council banned and ordered the burning of all Quipus in 1583 because they were used to record offerings to non-Christian gods and were therefore considered idolatrous objects and an obstacle to religious conversion.
The poor natives in Peru were doomed once the Spanish discovered all of the silver present. I believe they basically enslaved the local indigenous population.
The main losers of this were all the European nations which did not get the gold/silver influx, as they also got the same inflation but without the compensating revenue.
"did the Spanish little good" ?!? All of South America is now Spanish speaking.. how did that happen ? and their genetics are spread thoroughly.. I dont see 580 million people speaking the Dutch language (who were known as cooperators, traders, culturally respectful in many cases)
edit- respeito ao Brasil, lar da vuvuzela barulhenta
Correction: most of South America. Brazil was a Portuguese colony thanks to the Treaty of Tordesilhas from 1494 and therefore speaks Portuguese, not Spanish.
(Brazilian gold ended up in England, helping fuel the industrial revolution)
dude - read some history.. the biggest slavers of the old world made the Dutch look like beginners.. and slavers have been hated by their own people since forever.. putting "slavers" and "Dutch" together is pretty ignorant, even if it is partially true
Hey, the Spaniards fought the Ottomans and the French incessantly for quite a while using the silver from the Americas. ;) Also the Spanish defaulted on loans a few times during this period. So yeah, they kinda spent all their money on stuff that did more harm in the long run.
OK, I'll be going a little meta with this comment and thread, so hopefully dang will allow me some leeway.
The value of Huamán Poma's chronicle is not just the historical account per se, but the fact that it appeals to the arguments, values and institutions that justified the colonization of his country.
Obviously, whatever arguments he presented, even if they had reached the Spanish court, would have been discarded by the political necessities of the moment. Multiple times (e.g. Peace of Utrecht, Congress of Vienna, Berlin Conference) the great powers have used symbolic statements, forgotten treaties, obscure precedents... to legitimize the partition or annexation of a territory; or the independence or promoted status of some other territories perhaps sharing remarkable circumstances to the above-mentioned and now-divided territory. The point is, the legal reasoning comes after the political decision.
In this thread we've seen something similar. Multiple users have presented some of the arguments that one usually finds among a very particular political group in Spanish politics. "They were provinces, not colonies", "They were not conquered but liberated", "They died mostly of disease", "Spanish laws protected the new citizens". Those are staples of Spanish nationalism (particularly right-wing), aiming to defend the legitimacy of the decisions of XVIth century monarchs and ultimately to present an attractive national narrative.
Out of respect for this site and its rules, I will not engage those users, but... we find ourselves now in a similar situation of that of Huamán: should we contest those interpretations? Will otherwise internet archeologists from the XXXIst century conclude that those interpretations were common and shared among the societies of both Spain and Peru (because "el que calla otorga", i.e. silence gives consent)? From Huamán Poma's history we should conclude that contesting an argument, just "showing up" is in itself the most powerful argument, isn't it?
> From Huamán Poma's history we should conclude that contesting an argument, just "showing up" is in itself the most powerful argument, isn't it?
Absolutely. I long ago realised the futility of random arguments on the internet towards changing people's minds, but I keep going given I enjoy it too much.
But for everyone writing a comment, 10 other people are reading along. So I write for the lurkers... perhaps my reasonable and well-referenced comments are the ones they find the most persuasive.
And indeed, I've been contacted out of the blue by, eg religious parents who never cared enough to bother thinking about science much themselves and so accepted creationism just as a default, but whose kids have developed an interest and want to know about how one can both be a Christian and accept evolution. (Not as much anymore though, I've moved on to other areas.)
Likewise when I used to engage with an unreasonable relative,I was occasionally thanked privately by a stranger. There was no chance of changing the mind of the person I was arguing with, but many other people saw such things.
A note of warning: I'm afraid this topic brings many propagandists. Both in the "Spanish nationalist" side and in the "anti-Spanish" retoric.
The facts are there, search for information, but be aware that for many years the English language narrative of the History of Spain has been dominated by the Black Legend [1].
All in this topic had a political purpose since the start. Is pretty obvious.
We had heard this shit for years and is always the same thing. They even called us the "PIGS" not so long ago... The science and education and creation are quickly dismissed, appropriated by third parts or hidden and 'rediscovered' later. The bad parts are always stressed, appealing to emotion and throwing the logic by the window. Adult people that should use their brains, really seem to believe that each one in a bunch of Spaniards killed like 30 natives by minute for ten years, without stopping to sleep or dinner, 24 hours a day... and when are told a much more simple and logical explanation, they just dismiss it as false without thinking for a second.
My bet is that nothing in this book will radically change the history, and that the author of the review could expand their mind and benefit to a quick visit to one of the Spanish or American libraries that keep thousands of American manuscripts freely available to researchers about that age.
I'm aware also that suggesting some people to go to a library and open a real history book written by a real hispanist to verify the facts by themselves is losing my time.
Well, for some of them, it is a form of distraction:
See how the current president of Mexico (López Obrador) is making exagerated remarks about the Spanish conquest of Mexico, calling for reparations and asking for an official apology. Why now?
- Mexico is suffering poverty and a wave of killings related to "narcos".
- In Mexico there is a European-descendent oligarchy that controls the country.
- It is a form of keeping the country united and creating an official narrative.
Funny also how López Obrador is white, and descendent of Spaniards. Mustn't he ask for an official apology to himself?
What about the American conquest of Mexico? And the Mexican Empire where the French conquered the country?
On the other hand, it's also the narrative that British and Americans did nothing wrong, so again, it is a form of distraction. Or as Goebbles said "A lie told once remains a lie but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth".
72 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 132 ms ] threadSublimis Deus 1537
Pastorale Officium 1537
New Laws 1542
Laws of Spain, or of Roman Christendom, declaring that America belongs to Americans (ie natives) and that they are free.
Bill of rights not seen by any European colonized peoples elsewhere.
Ever wonder why all the brown people seem to live south of Rio Grande, as soon as the language changes to Spanish? Because the Spaniards were, by far, the most benign European imperialists.
There were crimes, Potosi cries out to this day, but the fact that an Incan nobleman knew how to write in Spanish and could petition the court of Charles V (?) is a testament to Spain.
¡Viva España!
While you’re at it, care to expound a little more than “reframing”?
Did those laws not exist?
Did they not grant rights unheard of in the 16th century?
Are there not vastly larger populations of natives south of Rio Grande?
Did I not acknowledge that crimes were committed (but were leas in intensity and duration than of other colonizers)?
I mean, my comment surely hurts the pride of Anglos (and Dutch) - for all their moaning of conquistadors Northern Europeans were far more brutal than Spain. Theres no contest.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
a.k.a. please don't feed the trolls
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Interracial marriage centuries before it was legal in the US.
Tens of universities.
And even a vaccine. Not a vaccine as we know them today but a vaccine nevertheless. [1]
[0] https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Eight-hour_day
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balmis_Expedition
To put it concisely, Europeans were deluded into the belief that hierarchy was ever-present - something which is heavily discredited historically. Further rationalizations that it must be so for a "developed, complex" society is evidently made spurious as well.
The various peoples of the Americas on the other hand, lacking in these diverse influences, and instead developing their own systems often altogether eschewed hierarchy and formalized coercive powers. Men and women in some cultures were very explicitly equal, and chiefs held little in the way of formal power. They were public speakers, and they had to present rational and convincing arguments - the rational tradition. This is a stark contrast to the feudal system and the heavy influence of the Roman Catholic church at the time. DoE suggests that certain figures had considerable influence on later though, providing citations from philosophers such as Montesquieu.
Their key argument comes from a highly-referenced individual named Kandiaronk, who is quite probably the basis for Adario in Baron Lahontan's books (evidently very popular), of particular interest:
"Finally, Supplement aux Voyages ou Dialogues avec le sauvage Adario lambasts institutional Christianity by means of a dialogue between de Lahontan and a Huron Chief named Adario (The Rat). The author attempts to contrast the injustice of Christianity with the freedom and justice of native people. His idealized view of "natural humanity" as a vehicle for criticizing European civilization was a forceful early expression of the "noble savage" trope associated with the Enlightenment."[1]
Evidently, Lahontan's writings were very popular:
"All these would be rather trivial concerns had Lahontan’s books not been so successful; but they were to have an enormous impact on European sensibilities. Kandiaronk’s opinions were translated into German, English, Dutch and Italian, and continued in print, in multiple editions, for over a century. Any self-respecting intellectual of the eighteenth century would have been almost certain to have read them." [2]
Coming from that point of reference, it wouldn't be surprising that Spain, having decades worth of exclusive exposure, would come out leading "liberal" thought. But is it fair to assert that it was Europeans that initiated it if it is so that they were inspired by the natives of the New World?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis-Armand_de_Lom_d%27Arce_d... [2] Dawn of Everything
"But apart from killing 80% of the native population, who definitely weren't slaves because in return for their forced labour they were forcibly converted to Catholicism, what exactly did the Spanish do wrong?" The bills of rights were inspired by the extent of the conquistadors' brutality, were generally ignored and the New Laws lasted three whole years and one dead viceroy before the Spanish settlers forced the King to back down. I'm not sure missionaries teaching one nobleman Spanish so that he could write a petition to be ignored really offsets that.
The first law is from 1512, 20 years after the discover of the Americas. Given transportation at the time it is clear that he vast majority of the troops overthrowing the Inca were recruited by the subjugated native peoples. Kinda what progressives [1] tried to do in Afghanistan. Pray, what noble accomplishment do we have to show in Afghanistan after 20 years?
The enslavement of natives was against the law of King. Ignored by criminals, sure, but the law was clear and its violators criminals.
Forced conversion to Catholicism from a blood thirst cult that stained their monuments with the blood of innocents. Ya, they were real bad for that. Btw, if you insist on cultural relativism, what were progressives doing in Afghanistan but proselytizing feminism?
[1] I used the word progressive, as opposed to Americans, on purpose as the war was a multi nation effort cheered on by people, “right” or “left” who believe we have to impose democracy and liberalism on others. I remember before 9/11 when leftist wanted to liberate Afghani women. I remember in August, when leftists were aghast we left the women behind
Not sure you want to bring into focus Catholicism's history as it relates to the blood of innocents..
“ Not sure you want to bring into focus Catholicism's history on the blood of innocents..”
Go for it. I’ll defend the sins of Rome against the depravities of any other civilization, including and especially our own.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The Inca were probably the most astonishingly advanced Native Americans, and they surely had great thinkers (definitely great engineers). And here come the conquistadors, rock-headed barbarians from the most desperate segments of Spanish society (little else drove people to risk their life for riches in the New World), absolutely slaughtering them, burning their cultural artifacts or melting them down into ingots when applicable.
It's like if (a much more desperate and destitute version of) the January 6th protesters were sent to conquer new worlds.
As an aside, a colorful example[0]: they lured the Emperor in a plaza (he came to show he was unafraid, and his army were disarmed of all but ceremonial weapons), and, in the slaughter that ensued, they tried capturing him. He was up on a palanquin, carried by servants. Unable to reach him, the Spanish began cutting off the limbs of the servants, who it's said, without thinking, bore the load on their shoulders instead (it was unthinkable to do otherwise, as they considered the Emperor a god). Eventually, they captured him. In captivity, they taught him to play Chess, and I think it's said he was good at it. Later, panicked that an army was going to come and re-capture him, they killed him. Before his death, he was offered conversion to Catholicism, which he accepted, which awarded him the clemency of being strangled instead of burned alive.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cajamarca
The earlier ships were a mixture of those "barbarians" as you mentioned, and very learned people.
The concept of international law and human rights started with the discussions in Spain after the discovery of America:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/school-salamanca/#IusGent...
I didn't realise the universities at Takshashila and Nalanda were built by Visigoths. /s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_universities_in...
The universities that you mention are ruins. No need for the sarcasm.
You will forgive me for not engaging further if you are the sort of person that regards the econmienda system as a magnificent accomplishment, especially compared with the horrors of female education "leftists" inflicted in Afghanistan. It is the same reason I don't speak to the sort of person that argues the holocaust was basically self defence and signs his posts off Deutschland Uber Alles.
I should point out that the Spanish also imported slaves from Africa in prodigious quantities. However, instead of doing it themselves, the Spanish crown let out a single contract for who would be the sole importer of slaves into the American colonies (the asiento)--and all of the major maritime powers of Europe were vying to win that contract at various points in time.
Anyway, every time I've watched Germany at the World Cup they only sing the third verse of the Deutschlandlied which doesn't include that phrase. You'd be shocked to learn why it's fallen out of fashion. So that was a really pointless tangent for you to go off on...
The conquistadores were able to overthrow an Empire because they made allies with everybody else who was bullied by them.
Sadly diseases killed a lot of people. More than 90% of the deaths were caused by said diseases, I think it was close to 94%.
If Spaniards were marrying into the native nobility is because it mattered to the locals as they were the majority.
“ The crimes committed there were not different than the ones committed in Europe between Europeans.”
Just over 100 years ago Belgians were “harvesting” the right arms of Congolese for who knows what reason. The Spaniards were always much more benign than their Northern cousins.
Oh, by the way. Spain never had colonies. They had provinces and everyone in those provinces was just as citizen of the empire as someone from current Spain.
Um. Okay. A colony is:
1. "an area over which a foreign nation or state extends or maintains control"
and
2. "a group of people who establish residence in that area and who retain ties with the parent state."[1]
So, to say that Spain had no colonies is patently false- it most certainly had pockets of emigrants from the homeland who were still culturally tied to it and under its rule (the Philippines, Louisiana, any number of Caribbean islands, colonial Mexico, and the list goes on and on during Siglo de Oro and beyond).
I don't have a horse in this race, but if you wanna act like a pedant, you're gonna be treated like one. Ridiculous.
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colony
Living in a province of the -same- nation that has granted you a fully citizenship is a different situation than living in a colony ruled by a -foreign- nation. As everybody knows, the later typically comes with none or a restricted set of rights. Ask a Puerto rican friend for more details.
Let me ask you this: was the colony of Jamestown not a colony? English citizens in a foreign land ruled by a governor beholden to the crown?
Because that's how all the "provinces" populated by Spanish settlers were set up. King Charles V chartered the Council of the Indies, which set up viceroys to govern the "provinces" in the New World, which was beholden to the monarchy.
Aside from this, the actual charter of the Council of the Indies uses the words "colonias" and "territorios" when referring to their "jurisdicciones" as opposed to "provincias". I think those cognates can be fairly easily understood.
Look, I'm happy to admit I'm wrong if you can provide a better source than the charter for the council over Spain's colonies.
And I don't know why do you call me pedant. I just pointed out something that I think was relevant to the conversation. What I find ridiculous is you being triggered by it.
Laughs in Pizzaro
"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead."
a.k.a. please don't feed the trolls
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"most benign" does not equal "least worse".
sure, they didn't violiently decimate the native populations, salmonella took care of that on its own.
And instead of violently killing the remaining natives they raped and enslaved them (as compared to just murdered them). That is not benign in any way, shape, or form.
But the rest of the europeans sailed to conquer, with a very clear picture of what they were doing even before taking to the sea: taking over the "new world".
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
> one of the most important and idiosyncratic texts of Indigenous American literature remained forgotten
Hem, nope. I don't buy this BS.
In the roman empire tradition, Spanish crown registered absolutely anything of interest. They funded the first global, -global-, scientific studies about American Flora and Fauna. The whole stuff. Just one book in the series would gave us a much better picture of the history than this text.
And they spent a lot of money in that huge task, just to publish and share it with the rest of Europe. We have 'English' tomatoes and 'Dutch' potatoes and 'Italian' peppers or avocados because they shared the discoveries. Think about it. Try to culture some Asian spices in Europe instead.
There are probably hundreds, (if not thousands) of more relevant texts about the early history of the New World. And unlike the old tale of "boy finds big thing gathering dust in a library" they are available to anybody interested.
Spaniards or Portuguese crowns did a lot of things wrong but also a lot of things right. The last week somebody was talking on TV about if is time to repatriate the remains of Hernan Cortés to Spain to protect them from haters, The man was dead for centuries, for Pete's sake!.
Lets put it clear, this "miraculous discovering" is just another cancel latinoamerican culture stunt.
Spain is fascinating. The “pop” image of her is seriously wrong (and this is widely known to historians).
> this "miraculous discovering" is just another cancel latinoamerican culture stunt.
in 1908?
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The Qhapaq Simi language used by the Inca nobility is lost forever too.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Council_of_Lima
Like what we do today with fiat money.
edit- respeito ao Brasil, lar da vuvuzela barulhenta
(Brazilian gold ended up in England, helping fuel the industrial revolution)
Brazil, with the largest area, population, and economy doesn't count?
The US speaks English. Fat lot of good that did the colonial British :-)
I don't mean to engage in a flame war like we saw above, but "cooperators, culturally respectful" does not apply to any European Empire, afaik:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/08/10/dutch-colonial-history-...
Really? The Dutch brutally enslaved large parts of Africa and Asia.
The value of Huamán Poma's chronicle is not just the historical account per se, but the fact that it appeals to the arguments, values and institutions that justified the colonization of his country.
Obviously, whatever arguments he presented, even if they had reached the Spanish court, would have been discarded by the political necessities of the moment. Multiple times (e.g. Peace of Utrecht, Congress of Vienna, Berlin Conference) the great powers have used symbolic statements, forgotten treaties, obscure precedents... to legitimize the partition or annexation of a territory; or the independence or promoted status of some other territories perhaps sharing remarkable circumstances to the above-mentioned and now-divided territory. The point is, the legal reasoning comes after the political decision.
In this thread we've seen something similar. Multiple users have presented some of the arguments that one usually finds among a very particular political group in Spanish politics. "They were provinces, not colonies", "They were not conquered but liberated", "They died mostly of disease", "Spanish laws protected the new citizens". Those are staples of Spanish nationalism (particularly right-wing), aiming to defend the legitimacy of the decisions of XVIth century monarchs and ultimately to present an attractive national narrative.
Out of respect for this site and its rules, I will not engage those users, but... we find ourselves now in a similar situation of that of Huamán: should we contest those interpretations? Will otherwise internet archeologists from the XXXIst century conclude that those interpretations were common and shared among the societies of both Spain and Peru (because "el que calla otorga", i.e. silence gives consent)? From Huamán Poma's history we should conclude that contesting an argument, just "showing up" is in itself the most powerful argument, isn't it?
Absolutely. I long ago realised the futility of random arguments on the internet towards changing people's minds, but I keep going given I enjoy it too much.
But for everyone writing a comment, 10 other people are reading along. So I write for the lurkers... perhaps my reasonable and well-referenced comments are the ones they find the most persuasive.
And indeed, I've been contacted out of the blue by, eg religious parents who never cared enough to bother thinking about science much themselves and so accepted creationism just as a default, but whose kids have developed an interest and want to know about how one can both be a Christian and accept evolution. (Not as much anymore though, I've moved on to other areas.)
The facts are there, search for information, but be aware that for many years the English language narrative of the History of Spain has been dominated by the Black Legend [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Legend_(Spain)
We had heard this shit for years and is always the same thing. They even called us the "PIGS" not so long ago... The science and education and creation are quickly dismissed, appropriated by third parts or hidden and 'rediscovered' later. The bad parts are always stressed, appealing to emotion and throwing the logic by the window. Adult people that should use their brains, really seem to believe that each one in a bunch of Spaniards killed like 30 natives by minute for ten years, without stopping to sleep or dinner, 24 hours a day... and when are told a much more simple and logical explanation, they just dismiss it as false without thinking for a second.
My bet is that nothing in this book will radically change the history, and that the author of the review could expand their mind and benefit to a quick visit to one of the Spanish or American libraries that keep thousands of American manuscripts freely available to researchers about that age.
I'm aware also that suggesting some people to go to a library and open a real history book written by a real hispanist to verify the facts by themselves is losing my time.
See how the current president of Mexico (López Obrador) is making exagerated remarks about the Spanish conquest of Mexico, calling for reparations and asking for an official apology. Why now?
Funny also how López Obrador is white, and descendent of Spaniards. Mustn't he ask for an official apology to himself?What about the American conquest of Mexico? And the Mexican Empire where the French conquered the country?
On the other hand, it's also the narrative that British and Americans did nothing wrong, so again, it is a form of distraction. Or as Goebbles said "A lie told once remains a lie but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth".